I can remember suddenly becoming aware of the end of Trek the first time I was watching the last few minutes of First Contact. I don't mean intellectually aware, either...I'd heard the speculation before then. That was when it became a gut-level realisation, however...that there were some things which tragically did not make the transition from the 20th to the 21st century, and that Trek was one of them.
I do not consider Enterprise canon, personally...Part of the reason is the fact that the show genuinely does suck abominably, (or did...I haven't seen it for at least two years now) but the main reason is that to me it definitely has a "post 911" atmosphere. By that, I mean the inclusion of Trip Tucker, Bakula's character also behaving like a stereotypical Texan most of the time, and racism being a reasonably recurring theme of the show.
The current ascendancy of the South in American politics is a truly catastrophic development, with disastrous implications for many parts of the rest of the planet, as we are seeing in Iraq. I hardly think that in Star Trek of all places, which in the past was primarily about the concept of universal brotherhood, we should be reminded of a small group whose xenophobic and utterly detestable ideology is currently making life miserable to the point of unlivability for a much larger number of people than themselves. Lincoln's desire during the Civil War may have been to hold America as a larger country together, but from everything I've ever seen, in hindsight he didn't do the planet a favour...including the US itself.
IMHO what someone should really do is finally implement a working version of ports for Linux, and submit THAT to the LSB. I got basic dep tracking working for my own little version of it a bit back...doing it nearly gave me a brain aneurism, but it worked. We'd want to do it actually with pmake, as well...not the (comparitively speaking) perverted abomination that is GNU make.;)
The main one that I can think of, off the top of my head, is that the specfile/macro format is obtuse, utterly abominable to work with, and encourages sloppy coding. Then there's the truly awful practice of downloading binary RPMs from who knows where...Great security there.
The LSB advocates RPM as the standard package management mechanism for Linux. To my mind that's a really bad idea...RPM has a lot of problems. So I for one can't really advocate this.
That's basically a live-action version of The Sims, to a large degree.
In fact, initially that was one of the main reasons why I used to play The Sims...I liked the concept of Big Brother, but I didn't like the confrontational idiots they normally got on there, or the foul subject matter that was typically used to lure viewers.
With The Sims 2 I get to mess around with architectural design, putting Sims together, and all the social networking stuff/intrigue that can go along with it...but I don't get the unwashed deadbeats and conversations centred around bodily functions that you typically got from Big Brother. Everything I do want, nothing I don't.
EA should probably do a partnership with Legion Interactive (I think that's who does BB in Australia, not sure about overseas) to come up perhaps with a version of that show that is more in line with The Sims' teen rating (ie cleaner) and while live action, they could use cheap CGI to incorporate some of the visual elements from the game. (the diamond mood indicator, etc)
Trying to make Big Brother cleaner and less negative/juvenile probably wouldn't work, though...from the point of view that the producers seem to really think that fart jokes/housemates fighting etc are a big drawcard with viewers.
Well, of *course* gamers are *human*...I think what this survey was possibly talking about was whether or not they are what most of us would define as *normal.*
My answer to that question is that FPS/RTS gamers in particular probably are for the most part from what I've seen...although the hard-core FPS crowd *seems* a little more anarchic/aggressive than most...which then again isn't surprising given most FPS subject matter.
With regards to MUDs in particular however...I have strong suspicions that Eugene Tooms was probably an excellent representative of the archetypical MUD enthusiast.;-)
I think MUDs/MMORPGs and AD&D are probably largely responsible for the stereotype that contemporary gamers are socially/psychiatrically maladjusted. I've noticed myself that roleplaying in particular and normalcy seem to be inversely proportional to each other...ergo, a hardcore roleplayer is more likely to also be a hardcore freak as well.;)
I think the larger body of PC/console game players are relatively ordinary individuals...it's Battle.Net, UO/EQ, D&D mailing lists, and most especially the MU* sphere where the true basement-dwelling mutants are likely to be found.;)
>how the f do you get those bugfixes and >improvements back into your own program now... >they're under absolutely NO obligation to put their >improvements back into the common pot.
This however is the point that the GNU Marxist Brigade seem to keep missing. The definition of freedom is being able to choose *whether* you put improvements back into "the common pot" or *not*.
Also...in terms of Microsloth loving the BSD license, so the hell what? If they appropriated BSD code it'd be the best thing they could do as far as fixing a lot of Windows' problems is concerned. Bill can go and download a copy of one of the BSDs and do whatever the heck he wants with it, same as anybody else. Again, the other point you're missing here is that the parent code tree is still there. Bill can fork it, you can fork it, I can fork it...then we can sell said forks and profit. You can cry about duplication of effort as much as you want, in terms of us writing the same code over and over again...there's no compulsion for that to happen, because people can still *choose* to release improvements, as many do. So that still should not give anyone the right to *force* people to submit improvements. Freedom should be about freedom to choose...Not freedom to only do as RMS dictates.
That is another thing that really annoys me about RMS...His argument with regards to the BSD license uses scarcity thinking and is completely broken, but yet of course unthinking sheeple such as yourself swallow it whole.
"Your software rights or the best tools: often a sad choice"
This isn't always by any means true in the case of Linux, but it too often is. Although I've got LFS 5 on my system currently, I haven't used it now for a month or two...and I initially really didn't want to come back to XP, either. Why have I?
1. The fact that I've resumed gaming is the main reason. I want to be able to play The Sims 2, Unreal Tournament/2004, Unreal 2, and run UnrealEd. I don't want to hear about how UT runs under Linux, either...the OpenGL support for it is abominable visually.
2. I use a graphics program called RealDRAW which won't run with Wine, despite several attempts to get it working. I also don't in this case want to hear about The Gimp, as this program is so much more powerful than it that it is embarassing. I don't want to convert to The Gimp...I want to be able to continue to use the program I currently do...if I can do that under Linux, I'll use Linux...if I can't, I won't.
3. Firefox has (for me, anyway) eliminated the security problems that I used to have with XP, which means that I now have no real incentive to put up with the other problems I was having with Linux. No doubt this will add more fuel to the fire of the arguments of people saying that open source shouldn't be ported to Windows, because it means people won't end up using Linux. What such idiots don't realise however is that in the vast majority of cases, this won't change anything...it would simply mean that NO open source would get used.
You can tell me Linux doesn't need someone with my attitude anyway, but that is avoiding the problem...because there are a lot of other people in existence with my situation. That is one of the things however which RMS, in his deeply autistic, arrogant single-mindedness, refuses to look at. He'd prefer to label me as an expedient moral degenerate for not choosing "freedom" rather than accepting the fact that in some ways, Linux quite simply still isn't completely up to scratch.
A month or two ago I was planning on migrating to Linux completely...when I found myself thinking. Why should I have to subscribe to TransGaming on top of the price I've already paid for the games I have? Why also should I have to shell out yet more money for CodeWeavers Office? (especially when I don't even know if it will work with RealDRAW anywayz, considering it was written for Office)
I'm also really tired to be honest of reading these interviews/articles where we're all supposed to gather round and worship at the altar of RMS. The man is not worthy of anything like the level of reverence that he receives. He is, as I said above, and as I have said here on numerous other occasions, a deeply autistic, arrogant, narrow minded, megalomaniacal bore. He is also, as ESR has on numerous occasions said, completely oblivious and apathetic with regards to human nature and technical/pragmatic reality...a fact which is self-evident given the comparitive levels of relevance of the OSI and FSF. In short, he is an emotive figurehead whose importance is almost entirely subjective. He is the author of the GPL, yes...but that isn't the only open source license in existence, in case you aren't aware. Stallman would have people believe that FOSS would not exist without him...which is something that I completely reject...it is quite simply false. His opinion (and other people's) of his level of importance is grossly overinflated.
And for those who are about to accuse me of it, no, I don't worship Raymond myself either...but I do agree with certain elements of what he has said with regards to RMS...because I think it's true.
>For example, my ability to practise Judiasm in >the US without fear of persecution typifies >"freedom of religion" in the idealistic sense.
At the risk of being strongly politically incorrect, your ability to practice Judaism in particular in the US probably doesn't really say that much about freedom of religion at all. There is a particularly potent Jewish political presence in the US, which enjoys very strong support from the current government there...not to mention Judaism being the theological ancestor of Christianity, which is the de facto religion of the current US government...and also one of the main reasons why the Jewish lobby in America enjoys such strong support.
A more honest yardstick of genuine religious freedom in the US might be to ask whether a Buddhist for example, or even an atheist (someone whose belief system does not stem from Middle Eastern monotheism in particular, and thus does not have government sanction) whether or not *they* feel safe observing their beliefs in the US.
The Terms of Service Agreement for The Sims Online specifically prohibits emulation. Given that UO was really the first MMORPG (I know, I know, but I'm not talking about MUDs) in existence...or one of the first, EA got blindsided by a few things...Emulation and trading, specifically. They were very quick to learn from their mistakes in that regard with TSO, however. What of course they've never understood or been willing to accept is that it is only their own bungling incompetence with regards to managing the game on their own servers that has created demand for emulated servers in the first place.
I think you know, deep in your heart, deep in the stillness of your own mind, that you're going down, Bill. The people have stated their intentions regarding you, and that statement has not been in your favour. You've probably heard the saying before...Stop struggling, and it won't hurt anywhere near as much.
You refer to us as Communists. My response to that is that while Communism was *not* a historical inevitability as Marx claimed, the annihilation of Microsoft *is*. You can pretend to be confident...you can wrap your oratory in the usual spin and doublespeak...but we know better. There has been enough evidence to the contrary of both a public and private nature in recent years for us to know better. We smell your fear, and we revel in it. Fear is an entirely appropriate emotional response for you to be experiencing at this time. The event which many in the computing world have long anticipated in earnest, Microsoft's impending burial, and my vengeance, is close at hand, and well you know it.
It's interesting...I had a feeling virtually the moment I pressed submit that someone would label me a raving New Age fruit loop.;)
To clarify...I don't necessarily believe all ET are going to be acorporeal by definition...but I've been reading accounts of channeling recently...and I find it an interesting concept that they could perhaps communicate via acorporeal means...telepathy and such. Then again, channels could just be raving schizophrenics. Either way, it's highly entertaining.;)
In terms of what you say about if it makes me happy...the belief systems I've developed with regards to the Earth Changes recently (all the earthquakes, freak weather and stuff we've been experiencing recently) have helped me maintain a more positive perspective about all of that. I've believed the "End Times" as it's referred to (I don't call it that myself any more) have been imminent though for probably at least the last ten years.
If you're interested, you might want to google the Mayan Long Count in particular, as well as checking out this site, this, and maybe this as they're focal points of my belief system right now. Given the context of the recent freak meteorological/geological activity, you might just find some of it makes sense. I hope my parent post gets modded back up though...I don't think it's very fair that I get modded down just for having unusual beliefs.
1. That God exists, but not as a singular being in an external subject-object relationship with humanity as such. More that He/It exists in a kind of networked form which is able to take in information from the whole of the rest of creation, and then use said information in order to decide what needs to be done. Beings said to be following "the will of God" would be those that are sensitive to knowing said will and acting upon it. Sort of like SW's Force, but not exactly...More intelligent and purposeful. The Biblical Holy Spirit would probably be closest to what I'm talking about here, perhaps.
2. That corporeal death does not represent the termination of human existence. That heaven and hell both exist, but that people go there as a result of being attracted to their belief systems/expectations, rather than the decision of an external God to send them there.
3. That extraterrestrial life/intelligence exists, but that it is primarily acorporeal in form.
4. That astral space exists, and that we (sometimes) go there when asleep, as well as at other times depending on our interests and level of abilities in such areas.
5. That the corporeally dead can be communicated with, but that such activity should be persued with caution as there exists a possibility of instead communicating with extremely negative non-human entities impersonating the deceased.
6. That Jesus Christ existed in corporeal form as recorded Biblically...that the miracles, ressurection, and ascension took place...and that Christ's life and ressurection significantly altered the geography and governing heuristics of astral space/the afterlife.
7. That the period of the next seven to eight years is going to be marked by massive geological and geopolitical changes in the planet, as well as genetic changes in human beings. These changes are actually to facilitate the changing of the planet into a state that we would now refer to as acorporeal. Also that the current period is the time period that was specifically referred to in the Book of Revelation, but that it is more about a period of alteration rather than annihilation as such.
8. That although George W Bush and his administration are profoundly negative/self-serving human beings, they are in power for the express purpose of allowing America as a country to be forcefully confronted by, and therefore given the opportunity to resolve/work through, the dark side of the national psyche.
9. That despite the massive upheavals and apparent complete suspension of reason and sanity that can appear at times to accompany the current period, that people should try to retain a positive and hopeful perspective. I believe that the civilisation that will exist when the dust settles at least has the opportunity of being extremely positive...despite what we will go through in order to get there, I think it is something to look forward to.
I can't say I'm hugely surprised. Enter The Matrix was one of the laziest games I think I've played. They tried to rely purely on the novelty factor of the game having been produced in parallel with the movies...they presumably thought that everybody would be so impressed by that that it wouldn't matter if the game itself was a steaming pile. Though my view has always been that the Wachowskis completely sold their souls after the first film...in both the sequels they were simply committed to impersonating George Lucas as closely as possible, which infuriated the hell out of me.
The thing that really annoyed me more than anything else about Enter The Matrix in particular is that it sucked when it didn't have to. They would have had the money to license the Unreal engine...Hell, Epic are such Matrix fanboys themselves that they probably could have struck a deal with them to make the game. UT's physics can be very easily modified to resemble the physics employed in the films, complete with bullet time in single player that is actually gravity/speed altering as it was in the films, rather than purely aesthetic as it is in TMO apparently. Granted, that's because of the multiplayer element...Bullet time can only be done semi-authentically in single player...it can't be implemented in a network environment...in the films it was the neural interface that made it possible within that particular virtual environment...it can't be done with modems.
In terms of TMO though, I didn't know the gameplay itself was going to be that bad, but reading the Gamespy stuff on it made me think it definitely would not have mainstream appeal. It seems the developers of the game have boosted the martial arts/Asian cultural emphasis a lot more than it was actually present in the movies, and so those of us who aren't fans of Jackie Chan or Jet Li (most people, I'm guessing) aren't going to find TMO to be their shot of sake.
If the peeps who own the Matrix franchise want to make themselves some real PC-related money, IMHO they should license either the Unreal or GTA 3 engine, employ some people who actually care about doing the job properly, and then release an(other) absolutely monster single-player game. I say single player because that's the only way to do bullet time convincingly. Then they can (and should, dammit!) pull out all the stops. Give us the ability to perform bullet time stunts in the game with chasecam replay afterwards...where from the player's perspective during the movement it is in slow mo, but from the camera's perspective for the replay it is re-rendered at high speed...I haven't been able to work out how to do that myself with the existing UT bullet time mod, but I'm fairly sure it could be done. Bart Janssen's BT mutator proves that it's possible to make bullet time aware bots, as well...which has to be seen to be believed.
A new Matrix-related FPS could be the most awesome thing we've seen yet gaming wise if they wanted to be creative about it. They won't do it, of course...but it's fun to dream.
Randomly bestowing knighthoods/obes
on
Sir Peter Molyneux?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There was a period a bit back where that many of these seemed to be given out that I suspected that the Queen's primary motivation in bestowing them was actually to make sure that there were still *some* people around who had them. I didn't think Gates really deserved his, in all honesty...and I'm not sure what Elton John did to receive one, either...Presumably it was his cover of Candle in the Wind.
I do get the feeling though that despite long periods of inactivity, the Queen periodically experiences bouts of sheer terror over the idea of becoming irrelevant. I'm going to be accused of being an anti-monarchist here, but I'm actually not. I occasionally hear stirrings about the idea of the Queen being terrified about the monarchy's continuation, when if it dies, I believe that she as an individual should take full responsibility.
As an example of another religious leader, although the Pope has no real relevance whatsoever in the mind of me as an individual, he has gained a huge amount of respect and political influence from his involvement in the collapse of Soviet Russia. My point is, that because as an *institution* these figures (the Queen, the Pope, probably the Dalai Llama) have very little contemporary relevance, the only relevance/influence/power they can gain comes directly from their action as individuals.
To me, virtually nobody in the contemporary English royal family really does much at all. Elizabeth II has been almost entirely a caretaker monarch to my mind. Diana tried to be a lot more active, and the Queen's inner circle responded to that by ostracising her while she was alive.
So to the Queen I say...if you're worried about the monarchy dissolving, get out of the palace occasionally and actually *do* something. The world is currently going through a period in which Darwin's theory is acting ruthlessly upon institutions which do not remain in some way useful. If the monarchy dies, it will be directly your fault as an individual, not public apathy or anything else. We only need to look at the monarchy's (even comparitively recent) history to know that if the monarchy is in any way currently at risk, it only is primarily because of the current monarch.
This is positive. Following up email means that people are actually communicating with each other, whereas television generally meant the opposite.
With only a few notable exceptions, I have tended to long be of the opinion that television has been probably the single most worthless and negative piece of technology invented thus far...and its one claim at redemption IMHO could be the statement that it was a stop on the journey to the invention of the computer monitor.
Even at its most banal, the Internet is generally still encouraging some degree of both literacy and interactivity from its users. The "idiot box" on the other hand, is richly deserving of the term. It has been proven that in some cases a person's level of neurological activity is higher during sleep than it is while watching television.
The obsolescence of television, if it occurs, is not an event that I will waste any time mourning whatsoever...and I am in fact inclined to believe that if the universal death of television were to take place tomorrow, an intellectual rennaisance of unparalleled scope would almost certainly take place in the weeks, months, and years to follow.
Yes, playing a mage char in Shadowrun could be somewhat awkward, but that was probably more due to the fiction than the actual mechanics, from what I saw.
In the Shadowrun scenario, only 5-10% of the population were supposed to be magically active in any way at all. Magic users were NOT common, and neither were incidents involving magic. People throwing fireballs at each other after the escalation of a violent argument wasn't something you saw every day.
The other thing you might have found awkward was the fact that there was a hell of a lot of detail there...check out the Grimoire sourcebook as probably the best example. Very very detailed astral space system, and all sorts of other cool stuff.
So yeah...it was hard, and it was rare...but it sure looked worth it, gameplay wise.
Words truly cannot express how much I (and I'm guessing a very, very large portion of the rest of the world's population) despise this particular usage of the word hello.
While we're on the subject of the Lord of the Rings, I tend to think people who use/encourage such linguistic mutilations should be legally required to learn the Black Speech of Mordor...because that way if they really want a language to mutilate, that one is sufficiently ugly already (of course, it was designed to be) that in that case it wouldn't matter.
Learn a greater appreciation for, and usage of, the English language, you unlettered Philistine. If you were to do some serious research you would probably discover that it is substantially different from the bastardised pathois which you customarily utter.
Methinks Caesar is rolling over in his grave. In the case of the Americans, culturally speaking it truly is a scenario of the barbarians themselves having formed their own empire.
In every case I've ever heard of, the primary reason why a fork has happened is because the lead of the original project was percieved to be an obnoxious megalomaniac. From what I've read this was true of XFree86, and from what I've been reading if it happens to Gnome, it'll be true there as well. (And yes, I'm privately inclined to believe it was at least partially true in the case of the Emacs/XEmacs fork as well;-))
It sounds like the leader of the project you were involved with is now attempting to verify this truism by preventing you from copying the parent project's code to your new tree. Tell him that unless he either a) is the original copyright holder, and b) therefore wishes to change the code's license, (in which case he fairly obviously never intended to abide by the GPL in the first place) that he can go and perform an anatomically impossible act with a shovel with your blessing, because as long as the GPL is binding on the project, he won't be able to do anything else.
To RMS' credit, while he might not have been happy about the XEmacs fork (and he wasn't...I've read the email archives on this) but other than claiming Richard Gabriel had shown a "bad spirit" he never explicitly tried to stop it from happening to my knowledge, precisely because he would have known that forking is one of the rights that the GPL specifically grants.
The right to fork is crucial, because it protects against that part of human frailty which causes the behaviour of some of us to degenerate into fascism. If the leader of a project that you've devoted considerable time and effort to for whatever reason suddenly decides to start being a control freak, the right to fork ensures that the effort you've already invested will not go to waste. You can simply copy the project and relocate said copy to your own site/machine, and then continue working on it.
I agree completely that credit should be given in the changelog/wherever else to whoever has worked on the parent code, but for the parent project's lead to try and prevent forking of it if it uses the GPL is completely wrong, IMHO. In the XEmacs situation RMS might have tried to dominate people in spirit, but in practice he was able I think to recognise the necessity of abiding by his own rules.
What the esteemed Mr Torr perhaps isn't aware of is that the default installation of unsigned/untrusted code only became an issue in many people's minds because IE was the browser that initially did that.
The other thing for anyone paying attention of course is that all signing attempts to do is tell you that the code was written by the person who claimed to write it. The author however could still be the archetypical militant, sociopathic IRC dwelling 14 year old from Vladivostok, and so if automatic downloading/installing of *signed* code is still turned on without you eyeballing the signature, all having code signing in that instance would mean is that your computer had just been infiltrated by a 100% certified, gen-u-ine evil h@XX0r d00d. What a reassuring thought.
Let me also make a counterattack of my own here. Firefox doesn't experience problems with "browser hijackers." Why? Because only IE had the <sarcasm>ingenious</sarcasm> idea of storing the homepage address in the system wide registry. What a truly innovative idea it was, too. It made it possible for such wonderful people as the authors of MySearchBar and the truly inspired souls responsible for Bonzi Buddy to first of all point IE at their pages by default, and then automagically download and install their own home made ActiveX malware, thus allowing them to proceed to thoroughly rape/0wn your system.
Of course, I can well understand, given that, why nobody in their right mind would want to use any browser in existence other than IE. I mean, why would you want to miss out on all the fun and entertainment listed above?
>None of your points, either singly or all taken >together, gives any overwhelming evidence that UO >is doing anything other than what it's done for >years....just existed.
No...static movement in growth terms would mean just that...no movement. My point was that the population is falling at a rate of around 1.5% per month...which yes, admittedly is slow...but it *doesn't* mean the game is just sitting there and not doing anything. Since April 2001, which was when the game's population hit its peak, that's a 32.25% loss...which is nearly one third. That is enormous.
If the 1.5% per month change represented positive growth, people would be talking about how it's growing...but since this is something that people don't want to hear about, I get told that nothing is happening with it...which isn't true.
It would appear that there is at least one software company out there which doesn't want to get its employees and itself raped by the gaming industry's answer to The Blob.
Congratulations, Digital Illusions. Now all we need to do is get any of EA's other potential acquisitions to make similarly courageous decisions, and we might one day be able to strangle the beast. At least I can dream.
"We feel very confident in the unique features and heralded qualities of our game, and are now openly inviting everyone playing MMO's to find out what Anarchy Online is all about, completely free of commitment"
In other words:- "Because of the amount of new competition recently, and because we've largely been irrelevant to begin with, we're now so scared of the game dying completely that we're willing to temporarily commit economic near-suicide in order to attempt to jumpstart it again."
EA did this earlier this year with the "Return to Britannia" program for UO...giving people free two week periods and a free download of the Age of Shadows expansion.
Given that the amount a month's bandwidth would cost for many of these games, when the company behind a given MMOG offers you free time out of the blue, you can with certainty take it as an indication that the game is in deep trouble, popularity wise. Granted, it would make more economic sense that if they were ever going to give you free time, that they'd do it when they were doing well...but companies...especially software companies...don't work that way. When they're on a roll, they overwhelmingly tend to come down with a terminal case of hubris, and then proceed to attempt to gouge/rape you like never before, on the basis of a belief that they are invulnerable. It's only when most corporations are starving hungry that you can expect decent treatment from them.
Funcom making this offer can be very safely interpreted as a realisation on the company's part that Anarchy Online is headed for the gurgler. They're trying to save it, and if an MMOG is on life support, that should probably also tell you something about the potential quality of the game.
MMORPG live teams can't stop trading/brokering for the same reason the RIAA can't stop P2P, namely that the moment a company or group tries to step on it in one place, it will spring up in 10 different others. Blizzard might be able to intimidate/ally itself with Ebay so that *they* as one site/network don't allow WOW trading, but how many other trade oriented sites are there? You're also forgetting private transactions which can happen very easily. If the particulars are worked out on ICQ, Paypal doesn't even need to be told what the transaction is for...the people doing the deal could very well list it simply as a gift or donation.
Trading *is* one of the primary things that has killed (or at least mortally wounded) Ultima Online. Of course with UO there are a lot of other factors involved...but I definitely believe trading is one of them. It kills any challenge whatsoever in the game if you can use a credit card to get 10 million gp, not to mention what it does to the game's economy.
So to a degree I agree with what Blizzard are doing. What might work better for them though is if they did something like setting up a single server which was designated as allowing trades...then they could even offer brokering themselves if they have the manpower. The thing is though, if they did that, and provided some concrete incentives for those people who *wanted* to trade to only play on that server, it would score them some public relations capital which would then help them enforce a no trading rule on their other servers. The main reason why they would need the co-operation of the player community for that is because they have no hope of being able to do it otherwise.
Despite all of Blizzard's attempts with Diablo 1 and 2, the last time I played both of those anyway there were still tons of hacked items available for them. Griefers exist. So do adolescent Neo wannabes who spend all of their time looking for ways to beat a given system. These people aren't going to go away...and the trick is, to rather than making a futile effort to make them go away, give them what they want to a limited degree. That way they don't end up thinking you're a fascist and getting angry with you...which is something you really don't want.
Hell, if I was going to put together an MMORPG myself, (as part of a group, natch) I'd actually intentionally build some "easter egg" type hacks into the system, while making sure that they were a) reasonably obscure, and b) not genuinely upsetting to game balance. What you could then do is offer some kind of item possibly...say a rare of some kind...as a reward for finding them. The benefit of this would be that the kiddies would be kept so busy looking for your legit easter eggs, they wouldn't have as much time to go after genuinely harmful/disruptive bugs in the system.
Slashdot Mirror
I can remember suddenly becoming aware of the end of Trek the first time I was watching the last few minutes of First Contact. I don't mean intellectually aware, either...I'd heard the speculation before then. That was when it became a gut-level realisation, however...that there were some things which tragically did not make the transition from the 20th to the 21st century, and that Trek was one of them.
I do not consider Enterprise canon, personally...Part of the reason is the fact that the show genuinely does suck abominably, (or did...I haven't seen it for at least two years now) but the main reason is that to me it definitely has a "post 911" atmosphere. By that, I mean the inclusion of Trip Tucker, Bakula's character also behaving like a stereotypical Texan most of the time, and racism being a reasonably recurring theme of the show.
The current ascendancy of the South in American politics is a truly catastrophic development, with disastrous implications for many parts of the rest of the planet, as we are seeing in Iraq. I hardly think that in Star Trek of all places, which in the past was primarily about the concept of universal brotherhood, we should be reminded of a small group whose xenophobic and utterly detestable ideology is currently making life miserable to the point of unlivability for a much larger number of people than themselves. Lincoln's desire during the Civil War may have been to hold America as a larger country together, but from everything I've ever seen, in hindsight he didn't do the planet a favour...including the US itself.
IMHO what someone should really do is finally implement a working version of ports for Linux, and submit THAT to the LSB. I got basic dep tracking working for my own little version of it a bit back...doing it nearly gave me a brain aneurism, but it worked. We'd want to do it actually with pmake, as well...not the (comparitively speaking) perverted abomination that is GNU make. ;)
The main one that I can think of, off the top of my head, is that the specfile/macro format is obtuse, utterly abominable to work with, and encourages sloppy coding. Then there's the truly awful practice of downloading binary RPMs from who knows where...Great security there.
The LSB advocates RPM as the standard package management mechanism for Linux. To my mind that's a really bad idea...RPM has a lot of problems. So I for one can't really advocate this.
That's basically a live-action version of The Sims, to a large degree.
In fact, initially that was one of the main reasons why I used to play The Sims...I liked the concept of Big Brother, but I didn't like the confrontational idiots they normally got on there, or the foul subject matter that was typically used to lure viewers.
With The Sims 2 I get to mess around with architectural design, putting Sims together, and all the social networking stuff/intrigue that can go along with it...but I don't get the unwashed deadbeats and conversations centred around bodily functions that you typically got from Big Brother. Everything I do want, nothing I don't.
EA should probably do a partnership with Legion Interactive (I think that's who does BB in Australia, not sure about overseas) to come up perhaps with a version of that show that is more in line with The Sims' teen rating (ie cleaner) and while live action, they could use cheap CGI to incorporate some of the visual elements from the game. (the diamond mood indicator, etc)
Trying to make Big Brother cleaner and less negative/juvenile probably wouldn't work, though...from the point of view that the producers seem to really think that fart jokes/housemates fighting etc are a big drawcard with viewers.
Well, of *course* gamers are *human*...I think what this survey was possibly talking about was whether or not they are what most of us would define as *normal.*
;-)
;)
;)
My answer to that question is that FPS/RTS gamers in particular probably are for the most part from what I've seen...although the hard-core FPS crowd *seems* a little more anarchic/aggressive than most...which then again isn't surprising given most FPS subject matter.
With regards to MUDs in particular however...I have strong suspicions that Eugene Tooms was probably an excellent representative of the archetypical MUD enthusiast.
I think MUDs/MMORPGs and AD&D are probably largely responsible for the stereotype that contemporary gamers are socially/psychiatrically maladjusted. I've noticed myself that roleplaying in particular and normalcy seem to be inversely proportional to each other...ergo, a hardcore roleplayer is more likely to also be a hardcore freak as well.
I think the larger body of PC/console game players are relatively ordinary individuals...it's Battle.Net, UO/EQ, D&D mailing lists, and most especially the MU* sphere where the true basement-dwelling mutants are likely to be found.
>how the f do you get those bugfixes and
>improvements back into your own program now...
>they're under absolutely NO obligation to put their
>improvements back into the common pot.
This however is the point that the GNU Marxist Brigade seem to keep missing. The definition of freedom is being able to choose *whether* you put improvements back into "the common pot" or *not*.
Also...in terms of Microsloth loving the BSD license, so the hell what? If they appropriated BSD code it'd be the best thing they could do as far as fixing a lot of Windows' problems is concerned. Bill can go and download a copy of one of the BSDs and do whatever the heck he wants with it, same as anybody else. Again, the other point you're missing here is that the parent code tree is still there. Bill can fork it, you can fork it, I can fork it...then we can sell said forks and profit. You can cry about duplication of effort as much as you want, in terms of us writing the same code over and over again...there's no compulsion for that to happen, because people can still *choose* to release improvements, as many do. So that still should not give anyone the right to *force* people to submit improvements. Freedom should be about freedom to choose...Not freedom to only do as RMS dictates.
That is another thing that really annoys me about RMS...His argument with regards to the BSD license uses scarcity thinking and is completely broken, but yet of course unthinking sheeple such as yourself swallow it whole.
"Your software rights or the best tools: often a sad choice"
This isn't always by any means true in the case of Linux, but it too often is. Although I've got LFS 5 on my system currently, I haven't used it now for a month or two...and I initially really didn't want to come back to XP, either. Why have I?
1. The fact that I've resumed gaming is the main reason. I want to be able to play The Sims 2, Unreal Tournament/2004, Unreal 2, and run UnrealEd. I don't want to hear about how UT runs under Linux, either...the OpenGL support for it is abominable visually.
2. I use a graphics program called RealDRAW which won't run with Wine, despite several attempts to get it working. I also don't in this case want to hear about The Gimp, as this program is so much more powerful than it that it is embarassing. I don't want to convert to The Gimp...I want to be able to continue to use the program I currently do...if I can do that under Linux, I'll use Linux...if I can't, I won't.
3. Firefox has (for me, anyway) eliminated the security problems that I used to have with XP, which means that I now have no real incentive to put up with the other problems I was having with Linux. No doubt this will add more fuel to the fire of the arguments of people saying that open source shouldn't be ported to Windows, because it means people won't end up using Linux. What such idiots don't realise however is that in the vast majority of cases, this won't change anything...it would simply mean that NO open source would get used.
You can tell me Linux doesn't need someone with my attitude anyway, but that is avoiding the problem...because there are a lot of other people in existence with my situation. That is one of the things however which RMS, in his deeply autistic, arrogant single-mindedness, refuses to look at. He'd prefer to label me as an expedient moral degenerate for not choosing "freedom" rather than accepting the fact that in some ways, Linux quite simply still isn't completely up to scratch.
A month or two ago I was planning on migrating to Linux completely...when I found myself thinking. Why should I have to subscribe to TransGaming on top of the price I've already paid for the games I have? Why also should I have to shell out yet more money for CodeWeavers Office? (especially when I don't even know if it will work with RealDRAW anywayz, considering it was written for Office)
I'm also really tired to be honest of reading these interviews/articles where we're all supposed to gather round and worship at the altar of RMS. The man is not worthy of anything like the level of reverence that he receives. He is, as I said above, and as I have said here on numerous other occasions, a deeply autistic, arrogant, narrow minded, megalomaniacal bore. He is also, as ESR has on numerous occasions said, completely oblivious and apathetic with regards to human nature and technical/pragmatic reality...a fact which is self-evident given the comparitive levels of relevance of the OSI and FSF. In short, he is an emotive figurehead whose importance is almost entirely subjective. He is the author of the GPL, yes...but that isn't the only open source license in existence, in case you aren't aware. Stallman would have people believe that FOSS would not exist without him...which is something that I completely reject...it is quite simply false. His opinion (and other people's) of his level of importance is grossly overinflated.
And for those who are about to accuse me of it, no, I don't worship Raymond myself either...but I do agree with certain elements of what he has said with regards to RMS...because I think it's true.
>For example, my ability to practise Judiasm in
>the US without fear of persecution typifies
>"freedom of religion" in the idealistic sense.
At the risk of being strongly politically incorrect, your ability to practice Judaism in particular in the US probably doesn't really say that much about freedom of religion at all. There is a particularly potent Jewish political presence in the US, which enjoys very strong support from the current government there...not to mention Judaism being the theological ancestor of Christianity, which is the de facto religion of the current US government...and also one of the main reasons why the Jewish lobby in America enjoys such strong support.
A more honest yardstick of genuine religious freedom in the US might be to ask whether a Buddhist for example, or even an atheist (someone whose belief system does not stem from Middle Eastern monotheism in particular, and thus does not have government sanction) whether or not *they* feel safe observing their beliefs in the US.
The Terms of Service Agreement for The Sims Online specifically prohibits emulation. Given that UO was really the first MMORPG (I know, I know, but I'm not talking about MUDs) in existence...or one of the first, EA got blindsided by a few things...Emulation and trading, specifically. They were very quick to learn from their mistakes in that regard with TSO, however. What of course they've never understood or been willing to accept is that it is only their own bungling incompetence with regards to managing the game on their own servers that has created demand for emulated servers in the first place.
I think you know, deep in your heart, deep in the stillness of your own mind, that you're going down, Bill. The people have stated their intentions regarding you, and that statement has not been in your favour. You've probably heard the saying before...Stop struggling, and it won't hurt anywhere near as much.
You refer to us as Communists. My response to that is that while Communism was *not* a historical inevitability as Marx claimed, the annihilation of Microsoft *is*. You can pretend to be confident...you can wrap your oratory in the usual spin and doublespeak...but we know better. There has been enough evidence to the contrary of both a public and private nature in recent years for us to know better. We smell your fear, and we revel in it. Fear is an entirely appropriate emotional response for you to be experiencing at this time. The event which many in the computing world have long anticipated in earnest, Microsoft's impending burial, and my vengeance, is close at hand, and well you know it.
It's interesting...I had a feeling virtually the moment I pressed submit that someone would label me a raving New Age fruit loop. ;)
;)
To clarify...I don't necessarily believe all ET are going to be acorporeal by definition...but I've been reading accounts of channeling recently...and I find it an interesting concept that they could perhaps communicate via acorporeal means...telepathy and such. Then again, channels could just be raving schizophrenics. Either way, it's highly entertaining.
In terms of what you say about if it makes me happy...the belief systems I've developed with regards to the Earth Changes recently (all the earthquakes, freak weather and stuff we've been experiencing recently) have helped me maintain a more positive perspective about all of that. I've believed the "End Times" as it's referred to (I don't call it that myself any more) have been imminent though for probably at least the last ten years.
If you're interested, you might want to google the Mayan Long Count in particular, as well as checking out this site, this, and maybe this as they're focal points of my belief system right now. Given the context of the recent freak meteorological/geological activity, you might just find some of it makes sense. I hope my parent post gets modded back up though...I don't think it's very fair that I get modded down just for having unusual beliefs.
1. That God exists, but not as a singular being in an external subject-object relationship with humanity as such. More that He/It exists in a kind of networked form which is able to take in information from the whole of the rest of creation, and then use said information in order to decide what needs to be done. Beings said to be following "the will of God" would be those that are sensitive to knowing said will and acting upon it. Sort of like SW's Force, but not exactly...More intelligent and purposeful. The Biblical Holy Spirit would probably be closest to what I'm talking about here, perhaps.
2. That corporeal death does not represent the termination of human existence. That heaven and hell both exist, but that people go there as a result of being attracted to their belief systems/expectations, rather than the decision of an external God to send them there.
3. That extraterrestrial life/intelligence exists, but that it is primarily acorporeal in form.
4. That astral space exists, and that we (sometimes) go there when asleep, as well as at other times depending on our interests and level of abilities in such areas.
5. That the corporeally dead can be communicated with, but that such activity should be persued with caution as there exists a possibility of instead communicating with extremely negative non-human entities impersonating the deceased.
6. That Jesus Christ existed in corporeal form as recorded Biblically...that the miracles, ressurection, and ascension took place...and that Christ's life and ressurection significantly altered the geography and governing heuristics of astral space/the afterlife.
7. That the period of the next seven to eight years is going to be marked by massive geological and geopolitical changes in the planet, as well as genetic changes in human beings. These changes are actually to facilitate the changing of the planet into a state that we would now refer to as acorporeal. Also that the current period is the time period that was specifically referred to in the Book of Revelation, but that it is more about a period of alteration rather than annihilation as such.
8. That although George W Bush and his administration are profoundly negative/self-serving human beings, they are in power for the express purpose of allowing America as a country to be forcefully confronted by, and therefore given the opportunity to resolve/work through, the dark side of the national psyche.
9. That despite the massive upheavals and apparent complete suspension of reason and sanity that can appear at times to accompany the current period, that people should try to retain a positive and hopeful perspective. I believe that the civilisation that will exist when the dust settles at least has the opportunity of being extremely positive...despite what we will go through in order to get there, I think it is something to look forward to.
I can't say I'm hugely surprised. Enter The Matrix was one of the laziest games I think I've played. They tried to rely purely on the novelty factor of the game having been produced in parallel with the movies...they presumably thought that everybody would be so impressed by that that it wouldn't matter if the game itself was a steaming pile. Though my view has always been that the Wachowskis completely sold their souls after the first film...in both the sequels they were simply committed to impersonating George Lucas as closely as possible, which infuriated the hell out of me.
The thing that really annoyed me more than anything else about Enter The Matrix in particular is that it sucked when it didn't have to. They would have had the money to license the Unreal engine...Hell, Epic are such Matrix fanboys themselves that they probably could have struck a deal with them to make the game. UT's physics can be very easily modified to resemble the physics employed in the films, complete with bullet time in single player that is actually gravity/speed altering as it was in the films, rather than purely aesthetic as it is in TMO apparently. Granted, that's because of the multiplayer element...Bullet time can only be done semi-authentically in single player...it can't be implemented in a network environment...in the films it was the neural interface that made it possible within that particular virtual environment...it can't be done with modems.
In terms of TMO though, I didn't know the gameplay itself was going to be that bad, but reading the Gamespy stuff on it made me think it definitely would not have mainstream appeal. It seems the developers of the game have boosted the martial arts/Asian cultural emphasis a lot more than it was actually present in the movies, and so those of us who aren't fans of Jackie Chan or Jet Li (most people, I'm guessing) aren't going to find TMO to be their shot of sake.
If the peeps who own the Matrix franchise want to make themselves some real PC-related money, IMHO they should license either the Unreal or GTA 3 engine, employ some people who actually care about doing the job properly, and then release an(other) absolutely monster single-player game. I say single player because that's the only way to do bullet time convincingly. Then they can (and should, dammit!) pull out all the stops. Give us the ability to perform bullet time stunts in the game with chasecam replay afterwards...where from the player's perspective during the movement it is in slow mo, but from the camera's perspective for the replay it is re-rendered at high speed...I haven't been able to work out how to do that myself with the existing UT bullet time mod, but I'm fairly sure it could be done. Bart Janssen's BT mutator proves that it's possible to make bullet time aware bots, as well...which has to be seen to be believed.
A new Matrix-related FPS could be the most awesome thing we've seen yet gaming wise if they wanted to be creative about it. They won't do it, of course...but it's fun to dream.
There was a period a bit back where that many of these seemed to be given out that I suspected that the Queen's primary motivation in bestowing them was actually to make sure that there were still *some* people around who had them. I didn't think Gates really deserved his, in all honesty...and I'm not sure what Elton John did to receive one, either...Presumably it was his cover of Candle in the Wind.
I do get the feeling though that despite long periods of inactivity, the Queen periodically experiences bouts of sheer terror over the idea of becoming irrelevant. I'm going to be accused of being an anti-monarchist here, but I'm actually not. I occasionally hear stirrings about the idea of the Queen being terrified about the monarchy's continuation, when if it dies, I believe that she as an individual should take full responsibility.
As an example of another religious leader, although the Pope has no real relevance whatsoever in the mind of me as an individual, he has gained a huge amount of respect and political influence from his involvement in the collapse of Soviet Russia. My point is, that because as an *institution* these figures (the Queen, the Pope, probably the Dalai Llama) have very little contemporary relevance, the only relevance/influence/power they can gain comes directly from their action as individuals.
To me, virtually nobody in the contemporary English royal family really does much at all. Elizabeth II has been almost entirely a caretaker monarch to my mind. Diana tried to be a lot more active, and the Queen's inner circle responded to that by ostracising her while she was alive.
So to the Queen I say...if you're worried about the monarchy dissolving, get out of the palace occasionally and actually *do* something. The world is currently going through a period in which Darwin's theory is acting ruthlessly upon institutions which do not remain in some way useful. If the monarchy dies, it will be directly your fault as an individual, not public apathy or anything else. We only need to look at the monarchy's (even comparitively recent) history to know that if the monarchy is in any way currently at risk, it only is primarily because of the current monarch.
This is positive. Following up email means that people are actually communicating with each other, whereas television generally meant the opposite.
With only a few notable exceptions, I have tended to long be of the opinion that television has been probably the single most worthless and negative piece of technology invented thus far...and its one claim at redemption IMHO could be the statement that it was a stop on the journey to the invention of the computer monitor.
Even at its most banal, the Internet is generally still encouraging some degree of both literacy and interactivity from its users. The "idiot box" on the other hand, is richly deserving of the term. It has been proven that in some cases a person's level of neurological activity is higher during sleep than it is while watching television.
The obsolescence of television, if it occurs, is not an event that I will waste any time mourning whatsoever...and I am in fact inclined to believe that if the universal death of television were to take place tomorrow, an intellectual rennaisance of unparalleled scope would almost certainly take place in the weeks, months, and years to follow.
Yes, playing a mage char in Shadowrun could be somewhat awkward, but that was probably more due to the fiction than the actual mechanics, from what I saw.
In the Shadowrun scenario, only 5-10% of the population were supposed to be magically active in any way at all. Magic users were NOT common, and neither were incidents involving magic. People throwing fireballs at each other after the escalation of a violent argument wasn't something you saw every day.
The other thing you might have found awkward was the fact that there was a hell of a lot of detail there...check out the Grimoire sourcebook as probably the best example. Very very detailed astral space system, and all sorts of other cool stuff.
So yeah...it was hard, and it was rare...but it sure looked worth it, gameplay wise.
Words truly cannot express how much I (and I'm guessing a very, very large portion of the rest of the world's population) despise this particular usage of the word hello.
While we're on the subject of the Lord of the Rings, I tend to think people who use/encourage such linguistic mutilations should be legally required to learn the Black Speech of Mordor...because that way if they really want a language to mutilate, that one is sufficiently ugly already (of course, it was designed to be) that in that case it wouldn't matter.
Learn a greater appreciation for, and usage of, the English language, you unlettered Philistine. If you were to do some serious research you would probably discover that it is substantially different from the bastardised pathois which you customarily utter.
Methinks Caesar is rolling over in his grave. In the case of the Americans, culturally speaking it truly is a scenario of the barbarians themselves having formed their own empire.
In every case I've ever heard of, the primary reason why a fork has happened is because the lead of the original project was percieved to be an obnoxious megalomaniac. From what I've read this was true of XFree86, and from what I've been reading if it happens to Gnome, it'll be true there as well. (And yes, I'm privately inclined to believe it was at least partially true in the case of the Emacs/XEmacs fork as well ;-))
It sounds like the leader of the project you were involved with is now attempting to verify this truism by preventing you from copying the parent project's code to your new tree. Tell him that unless he either a) is the original copyright holder, and b) therefore wishes to change the code's license, (in which case he fairly obviously never intended to abide by the GPL in the first place) that he can go and perform an anatomically impossible act with a shovel with your blessing, because as long as the GPL is binding on the project, he won't be able to do anything else.
To RMS' credit, while he might not have been happy about the XEmacs fork (and he wasn't...I've read the email archives on this) but other than claiming Richard Gabriel had shown a "bad spirit" he never explicitly tried to stop it from happening to my knowledge, precisely because he would have known that forking is one of the rights that the GPL specifically grants.
The right to fork is crucial, because it protects against that part of human frailty which causes the behaviour of some of us to degenerate into fascism. If the leader of a project that you've devoted considerable time and effort to for whatever reason suddenly decides to start being a control freak, the right to fork ensures that the effort you've already invested will not go to waste. You can simply copy the project and relocate said copy to your own site/machine, and then continue working on it.
I agree completely that credit should be given in the changelog/wherever else to whoever has worked on the parent code, but for the parent project's lead to try and prevent forking of it if it uses the GPL is completely wrong, IMHO. In the XEmacs situation RMS might have tried to dominate people in spirit, but in practice he was able I think to recognise the necessity of abiding by his own rules.
The other thing for anyone paying attention of course is that all signing attempts to do is tell you that the code was written by the person who claimed to write it. The author however could still be the archetypical militant, sociopathic IRC dwelling 14 year old from Vladivostok, and so if automatic downloading/installing of *signed* code is still turned on without you eyeballing the signature, all having code signing in that instance would mean is that your computer had just been infiltrated by a 100% certified, gen-u-ine evil h@XX0r d00d. What a reassuring thought.
Let me also make a counterattack of my own here. Firefox doesn't experience problems with "browser hijackers." Why? Because only IE had the <sarcasm>ingenious</sarcasm> idea of storing the homepage address in the system wide registry. What a truly innovative idea it was, too. It made it possible for such wonderful people as the authors of MySearchBar and the truly inspired souls responsible for Bonzi Buddy to first of all point IE at their pages by default, and then automagically download and install their own home made ActiveX malware, thus allowing them to proceed to thoroughly rape/0wn your system.
Of course, I can well understand, given that, why nobody in their right mind would want to use any browser in existence other than IE. I mean, why would you want to miss out on all the fun and entertainment listed above?
>None of your points, either singly or all taken
>together, gives any overwhelming evidence that UO
>is doing anything other than what it's done for
>years....just existed.
No...static movement in growth terms would mean just that...no movement. My point was that the population is falling at a rate of around 1.5% per month...which yes, admittedly is slow...but it *doesn't* mean the game is just sitting there and not doing anything. Since April 2001, which was when the game's population hit its peak, that's a 32.25% loss...which is nearly one third. That is enormous.
If the 1.5% per month change represented positive growth, people would be talking about how it's growing...but since this is something that people don't want to hear about, I get told that nothing is happening with it...which isn't true.
It would appear that there is at least one software company out there which doesn't want to get its employees and itself raped by the gaming industry's answer to The Blob.
Congratulations, Digital Illusions. Now all we need to do is get any of EA's other potential acquisitions to make similarly courageous decisions, and we might one day be able to strangle the beast. At least I can dream.
In other words:- "Because of the amount of new competition recently, and because we've largely been irrelevant to begin with, we're now so scared of the game dying completely that we're willing to temporarily commit economic near-suicide in order to attempt to jumpstart it again."
EA did this earlier this year with the "Return to Britannia" program for UO...giving people free two week periods and a free download of the Age of Shadows expansion.
Given that the amount a month's bandwidth would cost for many of these games, when the company behind a given MMOG offers you free time out of the blue, you can with certainty take it as an indication that the game is in deep trouble, popularity wise. Granted, it would make more economic sense that if they were ever going to give you free time, that they'd do it when they were doing well...but companies...especially software companies...don't work that way. When they're on a roll, they overwhelmingly tend to come down with a terminal case of hubris, and then proceed to attempt to gouge/rape you like never before, on the basis of a belief that they are invulnerable. It's only when most corporations are starving hungry that you can expect decent treatment from them.
Funcom making this offer can be very safely interpreted as a realisation on the company's part that Anarchy Online is headed for the gurgler. They're trying to save it, and if an MMOG is on life support, that should probably also tell you something about the potential quality of the game.
...And here's why.
MMORPG live teams can't stop trading/brokering for the same reason the RIAA can't stop P2P, namely that the moment a company or group tries to step on it in one place, it will spring up in 10 different others. Blizzard might be able to intimidate/ally itself with Ebay so that *they* as one site/network don't allow WOW trading, but how many other trade oriented sites are there? You're also forgetting private transactions which can happen very easily. If the particulars are worked out on ICQ, Paypal doesn't even need to be told what the transaction is for...the people doing the deal could very well list it simply as a gift or donation.
Trading *is* one of the primary things that has killed (or at least mortally wounded) Ultima Online. Of course with UO there are a lot of other factors involved...but I definitely believe trading is one of them. It kills any challenge whatsoever in the game if you can use a credit card to get 10 million gp, not to mention what it does to the game's economy.
So to a degree I agree with what Blizzard are doing. What might work better for them though is if they did something like setting up a single server which was designated as allowing trades...then they could even offer brokering themselves if they have the manpower. The thing is though, if they did that, and provided some concrete incentives for those people who *wanted* to trade to only play on that server, it would score them some public relations capital which would then help them enforce a no trading rule on their other servers. The main reason why they would need the co-operation of the player community for that is because they have no hope of being able to do it otherwise.
Despite all of Blizzard's attempts with Diablo 1 and 2, the last time I played both of those anyway there were still tons of hacked items available for them. Griefers exist. So do adolescent Neo wannabes who spend all of their time looking for ways to beat a given system. These people aren't going to go away...and the trick is, to rather than making a futile effort to make them go away, give them what they want to a limited degree. That way they don't end up thinking you're a fascist and getting angry with you...which is something you really don't want.
Hell, if I was going to put together an MMORPG myself, (as part of a group, natch) I'd actually intentionally build some "easter egg" type hacks into the system, while making sure that they were a) reasonably obscure, and b) not genuinely upsetting to game balance. What you could then do is offer some kind of item possibly...say a rare of some kind...as a reward for finding them. The benefit of this would be that the kiddies would be kept so busy looking for your legit easter eggs, they wouldn't have as much time to go after genuinely harmful/disruptive bugs in the system.
Fascism can't win. But creativity can.
>My faith in intelligent design is as strong as
>my faith in the OS I currently use, Windows 2.0
I'm assuming this is a joke...?